Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>]

kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> In article <m2u3hof1w3.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes:
> >According to the Manifesto, Stallman had to write GNU so that he could
> >share it with other people who liked it *and* so that everyone would
> >be able to obtain good system software free.  Stallman also said that
> >he is required to consider it wrong for one to hoard information.  
> 
> Both of these are correct summaries, to my understanding.

Thank you.

> >If you received and modified GNU software, you shouldn't be required to
> >share it, *unless* you have engaged in the act of "distribution".
> 
> The first problem is what is meant by "distribution" and what is meant
> by "being required to share it".
> 
> >Once you have distributed, being selective about further distributions
> >is indistinguishable from "hoarding",
> 
> Not at all, and this ties in to my previous comment.  Suppose I write
> some software and make it available on a public FTP site.  That would,
> by nearly anybody's definition, consitute making a "distribution".

Yes.

> Now somebody comes to me and says they'd like a copy of my program,
> but they don't have network access.  Not only that, but the only media
> they can read is a CD-ROM recorded using a nonstandard encoding.  Do
> you feel I have a moral obligation to create such a CD-ROM for that
> person?

No, because you've made it available.  Telling them to get network access
so that they can acquire it themselves is sufficient.

> Yes, this is an extreme example, but if you truely believe in the
> obligation to share software, it would apply here as well.

By putting it up for anon-ftp, you have fulfilled your obligation.

> If you don't think it would apply there as well, tell us precisely
> what criteria you would use to determine whether there was a moral
> obligation to satisfy any particular request.

If an individual is solely in receipt of GNU software, his obligation
is only to tell you how he got it, so that you can do as he did to
acquire it.

If an individual has made enhancements to GNU software and has engaged
in the act of "distributing" (a voluntary act, mind you), then he is
obligated to share.

> >I've stated that I don't believe making snapshots available for
> >testing to be "distributing".  However, you've previously posted that
> >3.10 is the latest "production release" of GNAT and that ACT's
> >customers have been enjoying it for quite a while. 
> 
> No, Robert has not said that.  I'll let him speak for himself but I
> will say there's never been *any* version of GNAT either inside or
> outside of ACT that identified itself as "3.10".

He has already spoken for himself... and then back-pedaled.  Check out:
<http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=14813401&server=db97p2&CONTEXT=870210292.337379588&hitnum=5>

> >*That*, in my opinion, is the act of "distributing".
> 
> You need to define "distributing" more precisely before one can judge
> whether they agree with your opinion or not.

"the process of supplying something".

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>        Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43  56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B